The KGB Man have made the first of many moves. I don't have any faith in the EU since the Russians have Europe by the neck. Keep quiet or else will cut the flow of gas and oil to the West. The U.S. as typical will reward the enemy and abandon the ally. Next in line the Ukraine and after that the Baltic States, Poland etc... Russian Imperialism is back and the West will appoint its Chamberlain to please Mr. Putin the "fuehrer".

First of all, we should never forget that it is often very difficult to discern exactly what all sides have actually said or written to each other. Things are rarely as they appear is my favorite philosophy. Since the cold war, from my perspective as a US citizens I have always felt that the US/west has rubbed the almost fall of communism in the face of those in power in Russia. I think you win a war and then shut up and stop gloating and hopefully move on to a much better relationship. I think that never really happened because it always seemed to me to be the US, their way only, and then the other way which was just plain WRONG. Human egos play a huge part from my perspective regarding peace in this fragile world. I am not at all suggesting that we, the west, take a softer approach with Russia, but I think reminding the world that Russia, once a huge superpower that fell to their knees and was smacked upside the head in Afghanistan is not the way to deal with a country that based on its size could once again become a huge bully. Size does matter to some degree and why not be smarter????It appears everybody overplayed their hand in this conflict. I strongly resent the fact that the US is immediately asked to rectify the situation no matter the fault. I think it is high time the US has a policy that they can stand behind but that immediately sending in the troops or sending volunteers to clean up the mess has got to stop. It isn't that we shouldn't care, or that in a perfect world we strongly wish things could be different, but we are not the school monitors. I resent that any country feels they need to look to the US for help. We are not the UN either. Our country is currently dealing with economic woes, a huge debt load, and a serious cultural divide. We can't keep bouncing from one crisis to another and actually heal and get something constructive done. I supported the war in Iraq based on the testimony of Colin Powell that proved to be false because he was either duped and thus stupid, or he wanted to believe those tapes like some in the Bush administration, or he was careless and failed like so many to ask enough questions and know the enemy. If you have ever watched a herd of horses they resolve a rogue the following way. The alpha mare will sternly lecture the rogue colt about his behavior. He can then fall in line, or take the conflict up a notch. It usually is the latter. Again she has another talk this time with a bit of force. If she must again speak to the colt again, she will use considerable force and then the colt is sent away from the herd forever. The herd could have beat the colt to death to get their point across and send a message to all others, but instead the very worst fate is isolation. Think about it.

PE2001 - the fact that Bush/Poland signed the agreement on missile defense right after the Georgia crisis is just proof positive that this system was always aimed at Russia. And all these years Bush/Rice tried to convince the Russians that the missile defense shield was not a threat to them. What lying sacks of s**t!

Proposition: Russia’s objective is to rule the world.Proof: Russia seeks to restore itself to Soviet Union size by the admission of Russian leadership (calling the fall of the Soviet Union the greatest catastrophe in the 20th century, promising to protect its interests in any country by any means, including military). Russia, like other countries and people, prefers more to less. If given the choice between the Soviet Union territory and that plus one other territory Russia will choose the second option. In a choice between Soviet Union plus one and Soviet Union plus two countries again the second choice is made. Iterating this argument we get that Russia would most prefer to rule the entire world.Who has taken an advanced microeconomics course will recognize monotone preferences and proof by induction in the previous.In conclusion, the international community should make plans for reacting to the next Russian attack on its neighbour. The present reaction is inadequate since Russian forces are still moving deeper into Georgia. The next attack will come since the invasion of Georgia is premeditated and part of a bigger plan (Robert Kagan’s Aug. 11 article in The Washington Post). There are also plenty of „frozen conflict“ opportunities that Russia can warm up – Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, Eastern Ukraine that is mainly Russian-speaking, Transdniestria in Moldova, the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad between Poland and Lithuania (access rights for example), the mainly Russian-speaking Ida-Virumaa region of Estonia.

1.) After George Bush sends material support to battered Georgian refugees and pledges continued support for an autonomous Georgian democracy, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov states that America will have to choose between support to Georgia and Russian support in the international arena on issues such as Iran.

2.) Syria and Lebanon agree to establish full diplomatic relations for the first time.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is on his way out after a corruption scandal. According to a recent Economist survey, both Kadina Party candidates set to replace him are lobbying for a stronger, perhaps even unilateral, stand against Iran's nuclear program.

Israel, realizing now that a Security Council split by an inevitable Russian veto will fail to pass any meaningful future sanctions to stop or slow the Iranian nuclear program, will attack Iran and attempt to disrupt its nuclear program almost immediately after Olmert steps down in a month and a half. The calculus I'm using here is based on Iran's acquisition and employment of an advanced Russian air defense system, the SA-20. The installation of the SA-20 around a nuclear site (which may have already happened) will complicate an Israeli strike. Israel will want to move sooner than later.

Iran will then act through its Hezbollah surrogates in Lebanon to strike back at Israel. This will likely require Iran to funnel guns and bombs through Syria into Lebanon, destabilizing the fragile peace in Lebanon and wrecking any chance of Syrian/Lebanese d�tente.

Also, Iran may strike at US military bases in the Gulf if America is perceived to have aided Israel in the strike (providing intelligence, granting overflight of Iraqi airspace). Iran will almost definitely step up covert support to anti-American forces in Iraq.

Worse case scenario(s); Israel closes the Straits of Hormuz as a result of the strike, driving up the price of gasoline to something obscenely high... or ... increased Iranian support to Iraqi insurgents causes the White House to take direct action against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), now classified as a terrorist group. This may involve a kill/capture strategy against IRGC forces in Iraq. This is certain to lead to a larger military confrontation between America and Iran, regardless of the state of the Iranian nuclear program.

Best case scenario; Syria refuses to support Iranian counterattacks against Israel and stems the flow of munitions to Hezbollah.

From my perspective from a neutral Asian country it is obvious that the West has pushed Russia into this position. Since the end of the cold war the US has continued to expand NATO.In school in India we learned of the many binding defense alliances the world had until WWII. We learned NATO was one of the last of these agreements. A great alliance that was the cornerstone of European cold war defense. It means if Russia attacks Germany, the US will send soldiers, equipment and money to defend Germany. No questions asked, no senate vote, its binding in ARTICLE V. Do American professionals my age even know this?? Why dont they protest?When I first heard that countries like Latvia were joining NATO it became obvious to me that the US was being aggressive. As much as I support Latvia independence, it is 30-40% Russian and oil and railsways connect to Russia. The possibility of conflict is always there so why would the US give Latvia a defense umbrella? It would be more productive to give soft support and financial loans. Scenario: A mentally imbalanced Latvian kills some Russians. Many Latvian youths respond. The government does not suppress retaliation and Russia sends some tanks to the border. Does the US get involved. Do Nukes get mobilized?? This scenario is not unlikely - remember the statue removed in Estonia last year? Georgia and Ukraine are even a bigger mess. Its probable that these countries will have minor conflicts with Russia in the next 30 years. Are the US, France, Germany prepared to send troops no questions asked.From my perspective, giving Article V protection to such countries is a travesty to the original designers of this excellent defense alliance and a clear snub to Russia's sphere of influence. Many of us met at a bar in Delhi yesterday and actually the majority are cheering Russia on as an underdog that the West has kicked around for the last ten years. Our crowd is fairly pro-American as the last two presidents have built trust - but no one trusts the US defense establishment. The Russians are standing up to an arrogance that effects many, many countries around the world. Personally, I dont know any Russians but I can understand why they back Putin - even if you are a committed democrat like me.

Author's proposition to scrutinise Russian bussiness affairs in UE is good and devilishly clever.Lots of so called bussinessmen living in EU are former secret police. They still have power over old comrades in Mother Russia. Besides, it helps fighting crime.

In my opinion,I would think the author either is extremely stupid or totally a biased pro-Ameirca idiot.
He is talking Georgia Russia's response cannot compared with the Big USA's invasion to Iraq(will so far caused thousands of innocent deaths)because Georgia is not a threat to the world,so you are telling us that Iraq is a threat to the world ,and Saddam owned MDW, what a joke.
Frankly speaking, this article do not have the slightest objective, so the USA can invade every small coutry that threating its interest,either for oil(Iraq)or political reason(Yugoslavia),but when Ruassia doing sth just like the Big USA,you soud like you are talking sth else. Shame on the Economist Magzine to let such a ignorant article print!

Russia is already reaping the fruits of its over reaction in Georgia. The price of America's 'cold' war response to Russia for its hot wat is likely to be very high judging by its first response!!!!!!! Read below - hot off the wire service.

Warsaw and Washington have reached a preliminary deal on basing a controversial US missile shield in Poland, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced Thursday.

"We have reached a deal with the United States on the shield," after Washington agreed to meet Poland's key demand in return for hosting the anti-missile system, Tusk said in a live interview with the Polish news channel TVN.

Alas, the West won't be able to follow the Economist's advice. Steve Levine's provides plenty of reasons on his blog (http://oilandglory.com). The guy knows what he's talking about, having reported from previous wars in Russia and the Caucasus and having lived and worked in the former USSR for over a decade. I wish Western politicians would listen to this sort of guys who have on-the-ground experience. Then they wouldn't be chasing a pie in the sky.

I am appalled by the anti-Russian bias that the Economist has been generating as well as its complicity in spreading Georgian propaganda. Russia was protecting South Ossetian citizens from the Georgian genocide and this magazine has the gall to support this bloody maniac Saakashvilli! Shame on the Economist for spreading anti-Russian hatred.Despite all of your attempts to spread lies about Russia's humanitarian missions in South Ossetia, the governments of Slovakia, Turkey, and Kazakhstan have condemned Georgia. Italy and Germany will be next. Enough of these outdated cold war world views. US allies are not automatically good in the 21st Century. Saakashvilli and the rest of his government will be brought to justice!

The last time I can think of anyone being "nice" to Russia in their foreign policy was the US in the lend-lease program that allowed Stalin to defeat Hitler. Our thanks from Russia for that was a divided Europe and 50 years of nuclear brinksmanship in the cold war.

On the one hand you say that nobody is willing to go to war to protect the Russian near-abroad, on the other hand you say that Georgia and Ukraine must be admitted to NATO. What sort of nonsense is that?

I'm surprised to read ethnic Russians proud of Russian military campaigns. Like Slavic saying: carp fish vote for bringing Christmas dinner earlier.As I remember, ordinary Russians always paid the price of militarism. Millions dead as soldiers, more millions suffering starvation and poverty to pay for wars, 100,000s killed during purges, internal struggles and witch-hunts.Many claim to be Russian emigrants, so Putin's Russia was evidently not to their liking. I also remember common opposition to Chechnyan wars. So why cheering at Georgian war? All Russians here are paid by KGB? Or media censorship brainwashed people again within few years?

To let Georgia in when Russia has so eloquently elocuted its own Monroe Doctrine is tatamount to madness. The realpolitik of the matter demands that we respect Russian primacy in the Caucasus, despicable as it might be. If the EU and the US were to stay out that troublesome area and demonstrate a better understanding of politics, we perhaps wouldn't have had this war at all. The American Monroe Doctrine ensured relative peace, for the most part, in the Western Hemisphere. Let's not be myopic and be blind to the reality that perhaps a Russian Monroe Doctrine in its near abroad would serve the world equally well.

Russia has miscalculated her position in the 21st century, being mainly an underdeveloped source of raw materials and oil. Her economic developement will shrivel considerably without the West's finance and manufacturing assistance. She must not be a member of the G7 nor the WTO, because she does not qualify for them. Quetionable military prowess does not make up for the lack of underdeveloped economic state. Russia has missed the train well and truly and will struggle economically. Too bad. Was it worth to attack a tiny neighbour and make herself a pariah ?